LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 21 Jun 2015 17:17

i believe some of the "issues" and "wrong forks" that at various points delay domestic projects is due to a lack of continuous skill development projects that enable each generation of engineers to build experience, and build product, even if it is 50% as good as the best. user feedback from the field is important because no test plan can anticipate some of the user workflows and mistakes.

china has stolen a big lead over us starting from the grid because they persisted with experimenting and using in some quantity the domestic stuff like F-7 (mig21), H-6 (tu16 badger), Y-8 (an12), J-8, FBC-1 and built them step by step indigenously along with supporting industry. sure none of them were good enough to scare the IAF with its Mirages and Mig29s but when time came to start the J20 and J35, people and money were ready. and IAF and India is having to sullenly accept every trick the pakfa is throwing at us.

same goes for the wide family of air delivered weapons....down to rifles...even now IA is flirting with a huge foreign order for license making the basic infantry rifle, instead of funding OFB to improve and build on the INSAS.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Viv S » 21 Jun 2015 17:57

shiv wrote:Well this is debatable. I would count it as good news in the sense that
1. We cannot judge if the Navy's old stocks will suffice
2. The old stocks will have to be tested anyway on the Tejas and if they are nearing their expiry date it would be a good idea to simply test newer ones
3. Do not push Astra till its trials are done. Astra will probably go on Su 30 MKI first and be proven there and then ported to other aircraft. No one seems to be complaining about Su 30 radome, so the missile can be tested on that platform


- The first LUSH Harrier was delivered in 2009. Assuming the first batch of missiles was received in 2008, that would put the age of the Navy's stocks at no higher than 7 years. Or 8 years by the time its fielded with the Tejas next year. There's no reason for expiration to be a factor.

- Radome shouldn't be an impediment to Astra integration. It'll be ready by Dec as planned, or Mar/Apr next year if there are delays. The first Tejas squadron in contrast will be delivered only by 2017 (at the earliest). And it wouldn't be combat capable for another year or so. Plenty of time to get the Astra integrated with the radar and manufactured in suitable numbers.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 21 Jun 2015 18:04

(i hope they are doing this already)
I think the experiences thus far from IAF->DRDO should give us enough inputs for future (from now) designs and development approaches. For example:
Singha wrote:user feedback from the field is important because no test plan can anticipate some of the user workflows and mistakes.
So, what do we do?
- Hire pilots from IAF direct, employ them for the closed loop feedback as early in the product r&d stage right from components/sub/LRUs. Bring the prophets to the mountain strategy.
- Use existing platforms to integrate concepts, like how our IGMDP, where we infused tech demos in previous versions : a3 components in a4, a4 in a5, etc.. F16 was used extensively to get to F22 and JSF.
- Don't wait for LCA Mk2 to wrap up and satisfy each pilot in IAF.. If the hired pilots cheat, or doesn't represent/proxy IAF use, then fire them. Employ new IAF pilots.. Also engage them for future technology platforms - AMCA, ex: next gen dashboard - UI-man/machine, net-centricity, HMD, eye-sight/focus based short range heat seekers, retractable pods for towed radar decoys, etc. the point being, we test them ahead with real pilots, on existing platforms for future use.

Essentially, what brings in here is the huge support for the already tested man-machine interface, and there is no big struggle for training.. once each LRUs/feature or interface is certified, then training begins using these hired pilots.

regarding test facilities for kaveri, radars, etc is something we have to invest in..
for production engineering, restructuring HAL to have private participation here is vital for getting this going faster.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srai » 21 Jun 2015 18:55

shiv wrote:
abhik wrote:^^^
The navy is not the only source of Derby missiles. I would think that the IAF would have a much larger stock Derby missile from their SPYDER SAM system.

Does anyone have information that SAM Derbys can simply be strapped on a pylon and used as AAMs?


Rafael: Spyder-SRTM / MRTM
Short and Medium Range Mobile Air Defense Systems

...
State-of-the-Art Missiles

The Spyder systems incorporate the most advanced, proven performance air-to-air-missiles: the Python-5 dual waveband imaging infra red (IIR) missile and the Derby active radar beyond visual range (BVR) missile. In the Spyder-MR the missiles are equipped with a booster assembly. The same missiles can also be used for air-to-air missions.
...

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chaanakya » 21 Jun 2015 19:12

So what we gather from above is that Gripen was still undergoing trials in some critical parameters such as AoA and Stall , agility test etc after induction. Why can't we do the same for LCA?? User feedback will come thick and fast and will certainly lead to improvement and reduced timeline due to firm pre-orders in large numbers for various upgrades/blocks.

We need to invest in test facilities, it should be crystal clear to our policy planners. Why they did not do so is a mystery. ADA should be self sufficient in these matters.

HAL restructuring and private participation is a must if we are going to build eco system for aerospace industry for military and civilian applications.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 21 Jun 2015 19:24

Wah! Saab was still proofing the Grippen as it was inducted. Shows Swedish AF amenability. Here LCA wont get inducted till last reqmt is met.
And you want to restructure HAL!!!

Does ADA have money for test facilities?
It comes from MoD who gets advice from politicos among others.


Has to be both(MoD, HAL & IAF) or its like clapping with one hand.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4778
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby hanumadu » 21 Jun 2015 19:48

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka is buying 14 JF 17 planes. It could have been our LCA.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Singha » 21 Jun 2015 19:51

there was a huge 2000 acre joint-force DRDO, ADA, HAL, BARC defence labs campus planned in Chitradurga.
land acquisition had started. but some 'environmentalists' have launched a protest movement saying precious grazing lands were being taken over.

considering the huge racket the HAL wind tunnel used to make a few yrs back when I resided in koramangala....installing them in some sealed underground 'racoon city' type of facility or in rural spacious campus is the best way out.

but anytime govt wants to setup a facility, well funded 'civil society activists' HALO jump onto the place to rouse the farmers and local politicians into a frenzy.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chaanakya » 21 Jun 2015 20:19

ramana wrote:Wah! Saab was still proofing the Grippen as it was inducted. Shows Swedish AF amenability. Here LCA wont get inducted till last reqmt is met.

That is what puzzles me too.

And you want to restructure HAL!!!
HAL restructuring is not only related to induction but for scaling up production facility for LCA with large orders and to build eco system.


Does ADA have money for test facilities?
It comes from MoD who gets advice from politicos among others.
All monies come from Govt of India. hence I mentioned Policy planners which is Cabinet Committee on Securities. Should they decide on this money would not be an issue. Sometimes yopu would be surprised how money is spent on items not needed in many Govt depts.Can be saved and pooled to fund test facilities.



Has to be both(MoD, HAL & IAF) or its like clapping with one hand.

MOD and IAF are reluctant to come on board. Need hard nudge to move their precious butts.


chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chaanakya » 21 Jun 2015 20:21

Singha wrote:there was a huge 2000 acre joint-force DRDO, ADA, HAL, BARC defence labs campus planned in Chitradurga.
land acquisition had started. but some 'environmentalists' have launched a protest movement saying precious grazing lands were being taken over.

considering the huge racket the HAL wind tunnel used to make a few yrs back when I resided in koramangala....installing them in some sealed underground 'racoon city' type of facility or in rural spacious campus is the best way out.

but anytime govt wants to setup a facility, well funded 'civil society activists' HALO jump onto the place to rouse the farmers and local politicians into a frenzy.


I hope with crackdown on NGOs this issue should be solved. NaMo has to perform Tandav dance on many fronts on orchestrated symphony of destruction and construction.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2417
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 21 Jun 2015 20:35

India will never be a serious power or an exporter if IAF and IA are not reined in immediately. Other nations are able to export crap while we keep testing and retesting of functional, superior weapon systems like LCA/Arjun. The corruption in our armed forces is paralyzing the domestic MIC. If action is not urgently taken we can kiss the domestic MIC goodbye!!

The induction of LCA and Arjun would provide two very capable weapon systems to the armed forces that the enemy will struggle to match.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 21 Jun 2015 21:41

The privatization mantra is to provide domestic bribe channel.

By the way private industry in West also is a huge subsidy scheme which is beyond Indian comprehension.

2-5% IRAD and rest govt investment. Private gets to keep IP!!!

Whole factory in govt owned plants leased to private for minimal amount.

All this is transparent to commentatirat.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby chaanakya » 21 Jun 2015 21:53

Well, sometimes it is better to have Domestic rather than foreign bribe channel if it is inevitable. One need not condone it.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Sanjay » 21 Jun 2015 22:32

Ramana, what you seem to be saying is despite all of the shortcomings the Tejas is still more agile than JF-17. It has a decent radar let down somewhat by the current radome. The radar type should lend itself to easy compatibility with the Derby BVR AAM.

It has been cleared for R-73, dumb and smart bomb delivery and the gun works (if not yet tested in flight).

The whole point of this is - looking at it from any angle, the Tejas is worthy of induction even now and worked on in service.

What is the problem with say inducting the Tejas trainer as a LIFT to keep the line running until the Mk.2 emerges ?

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2417
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 21 Jun 2015 23:04

Sanjay, IAF inducted Su-30ks that were upgraded 27s. MKIs were delayed several years. Didn't seem to bother the IAF then. So why can MK1s not be inducted now? As combat aircraft.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 21 Jun 2015 23:34

Why this line of thought that the program needs to borrow Navy missiles or SAMs for trials? The Tejas program is well funded and cost for trial firings of missiles is included.

IN had 15 Sea Harriers when the LUSH program was conceptualised and its down to 11 (8+3). Numbers of Derby purchased were limited, and those that were purchased are fired to maintain pilot proficiency.

The Spyder SAMs are not plug & play. While the missiles are the same, they'll need reprogramming and integration with aircraft FCS. The Israeli marketing brochure has a "can" that no one is reading.

Initial Astra deliveries will go to Su-30 fleet. The R-77 was disappointing, the IAF later purchased R-27 from Ukraine to fill the gap. 220 sq colours presentation showed that squadron flying with R-27 and not a single R-77. Once the Su-30 fleet is equipped, Astra will equip the Tejas. Hopefully a Mk2 version should be flying by then.

We need lots & lots of AAMs.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Sanjay » 22 Jun 2015 00:19

tsarkar, in what way was R77 disappointing ?

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Cosmo_R » 22 Jun 2015 03:37

hanumadu wrote:Meanwhile, Sri Lanka is buying 14 JF 17 planes. It could have been our LCA.


I am increasingly of the opinion that IAF/DRDO are on a secret mission to lock down a limitless supply of Unobtainium (U-523). As we all know, U-523 is so rare because no one can actually recognize it when they see it and it constantly shifts shape and elemental composition. So, in addition to scarcity of the element itself, there is the paucity of people skilled enough to recognize it. The timing has to be perfect and Jupiter has to align with Mars.

The unobtainium recognition paradox can be expressed as an equation:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... t/nex6.gif

Where H= scarcity and R = paucity

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Hobbes » 22 Jun 2015 07:06

Sanjay wrote:tsarkar, in what way was R77 disappointing ?


This article by Carlo Kopp sheds some light on the issue:
....
The most recently exported missile in the Asia-Pacific region is the Vympel R-77 RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder), the "AMRAAM-ski". This missile, with unique lattice controls, is a modern BVR weapon designed to kill 12G manoeuvring targets, and credited with an A-pole range of 54 nautical miles, although some reports suggest early production rounds were not delivering the kinematic performance advertised, not unlike early AIM-120A AMRAAMs. As the R-77 has AMRAAM-like capabilities, it permits a Flanker to launch multiple rounds and guide these concurrently, engagement geometry permitting.
....

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Hobbes » 22 Jun 2015 07:27

While we're expending a lot of effort in discussing the FOC, which is delayed for reasons beyond the DRDO's (current) control, the actual area of concern lies elsewhere. HAL has been contracted to deliver the first 20 units to the IOC-2 standard, which is something that has already been achieved. Our focus should be on tracking this. While the FOC will be a great achievement and a symbol of the completion of of a very long and arduous journey, the reality is that the critical technological milestones it symbolizes are pretty much done except the BVRAM tests and the radar range. I am reasonably sure the IFR does not represent a technological challenge, given that the internal plumbing is all in place and tested by ADA/HAL. The BVR missile integration and firing should not be a huge deal given that both the products are of Israeli origin and we can always call on them for help with the integration in case of issues. Similarly, the radome is being provided by a third party that is highly experienced at the job, and who would not have undertaken it if they had not been confident of achieving the required range. Thus, while the FOC is a very important milestone and a validation of the aircraft as well as of indigenous technological capabilities, it is something that will happen sooner or later. At the most we may see a delay that will allow the DDM, aided and abetted by mischievous elements such as HAL's "distinguished" advisor, to create some tamasha that will eventually blow over. But then the LCA project has already been delayed significantly, and the DRDO and ADA have not helped with their periodic asinine predictions of early completion.

However HAL's production problems are a real issue, and may well be the factor that sinks the project, unless they're able to get their act together. If they're unable to produce and hand over the initial IOC-2 conformant lot in a reasonable time frame, the IAF as well as its political bosses are bound to lose their patience, and possibly take steps that will negatively impact the entire project. This should be the main topic of discussion on this thread. I'd respectfully request those in the loop to try to dig out what they can from their pan/chai/doodh ityadi wallas on the subject.

Just my 2p...

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Hobbes » 22 Jun 2015 07:39

Conspiracy theory from Bharat Karnad, for what it's worth:
Is the Naval air force better, more nationalistic than IAF?
Highlights:
There are curious goings-on in IAF when it comes to its dealing with indigenous and Russian aircraft. Is the Indian Air Force so institutionally set against the Tejas aircraft that it will go to any extent to delay its clearances and thus derail the programme, and to show up Russian aircraft as unworthy of India’s custom? Consider the evidence.

Cobham Aviation Services of UK was contracted to supply the quartz radome for the LCA radar. It is four months overdue, but the penalty clause has not been invoked. Why? Because an authoritative source says, the IAF has let it be informally known to the supplier that it doesn’t want an accelerated progress of the Mk-I lest it be ordered by the Govt to buy larger numbers of this aircraft, and so delays would be countenanced.

Further, considering the IAF’s attitude Cobham has also turned down ADA/DRDO’s request for 3-4 internal fueling probes to enable this aircraft to get an FOC (final operational clearance) for the Mk-I. No probes, delayed FOC.

The IAF is mortally afraid that buying into the Tejas will mean jettisoning the possibility of getting Rafales beyond the 36 mooted by the PM in G2G mode, which the IAF has its heart set on. It doesn’t want anything to come between the service and a big Rafale fleet in its inventory, especially as Vayu Bhavan is not certain that the def minister Parrikar will even realize the 36 aircraft buy from France.


I don't buy any of this claptrap, because of his patently incorrect statements re. the Mig-29 in Indian service:
Another piece of evidence: How come the IAF has so much trouble with its MiG-29 fleet (and its Su-30MKI fleet also), when the two squadrons of MiG-29Ks with the Navy have experienced very few problems, considering the maintenance regimes are virtually the same for the IAF’s version and the naval MiG-29K?

So, the niggling question arises: Is the Indian Navy’s air force simply better than the IAF in servicing, upkeeping, and operating advanced combat aircraft, meaning is it just a better operational force?
....


We've been discussing the Fleet Air Arm's issues with the Mig-29K on BR for a while, with (of course) Philip being the sole dissenting voice. Karnad seems to be singing in tune with Philip here, and that tells me he is not really clued in to current happenings.

And finally, I find his unsupported and unproven indictment of the IAF to be both distasteful and reprehensible. It is always possible though that Cobham might have succumbed to pressure from a certain blonde European aerospace manufacturer to er... de-emphasize the priority on the radome and/ or IFR. Wonder why Karnad did not think of that, instead of straightaway fingering the Air Force.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Jun 2015 08:52

^^
the above article is bad on the face of IAF! they better come out and openly say something

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2417
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 22 Jun 2015 09:08

Actions speak louder than words! Order a 100 Mk1/1.5s for immediate delivery and that will be the best defence.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby neerajb » 22 Jun 2015 09:35

MiG-29k is keeping navy guys in Delhi busy on weekends as well, managing paperwork for its maintenance related issues.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srin » 22 Jun 2015 09:52

Guys, this is Bharat Karnad - he talks non-sense and CT some 30% of the time. You just don't know which 30%

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1869
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby eklavya » 22 Jun 2015 10:34

^^^^
He is just hustling for Russian arms, LCA is convenient disguise. Cobham is a sub-contractor to ADA/HAL, who manage the contract.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby deejay » 22 Jun 2015 11:02

From the above quoted link by Hobbes ji, here is a quote:

So, the niggling question arises: Is the Indian Navy’s air force simply better than the IAF in servicing, upkeeping, and operating advanced combat aircraft, meaning is it just a better operational force? Training regime-wise, the navy relies on the basic Indian-made HPT-32, a basic jet trainer,before the trainee pilots are tasked to conversion units before deploying to operational squadrons. Meanwhile, IAF has besides the Indian-made trainer aircraft, repeatedly shown its disregard and disrespect for the indigenous HPT-40 trainer project on the anvil by buying a series of trainers — the Swiss Pilatus, the British Hawk, and it is said, has even expressed interest in yet another advanced trainer, the American Textron Scorpion (with most such buys justified also in terms of their use in counter-insurgency jobs, which of course, it is never called on to perform)!!! May be the IAF is an air force perpetually stuck in the trainer mode — a tendency visible since the stewardship of the service by ACM (retd) “Charlie”Browne, now enjoying the Norwegian fjords as our ambassador there, rather than being a serious and meaningful air force our adversaries fear. How else to explain the greater proficiency of naval pilots flying and readying to fight over a more difficult medium — the sea, when the trainee pilots are sourced from the same manpower pool? There must be something the Navy is doing right the IAF isn’t.


I knew otherwise so I double checked. The IN still does its Ab Initio training with IAF on the Pilatus like the IAF and not the HPT 32. I spoke to the Instructors on the day of the POP when 07 Naval officers also passed out after training. It is after the ab - initio stage that some Naval Pilots are going elsewhere (out of India) for training - seems like a Govt to Govt programme. Therefore a whole lot of 'duff gen' for spreading false canards here.

The bolded part can be countered very easily - IAF maritime Jaguars over sea; IAF pilots on deputation with IN; IAF operations over Himalayas - basically, this article has the insight of a DDM and not a defence expert. Shri BK ji, may best explain why he is attacking the IAF thus.

IMO, the IAF's acquisition policies are in question and under critical glare. Extending that to places like professional competence also weakens arguments made against acquisition policy because such articles or unsubstantiated positions undermine the critics credibility.

So let us focus on the sensational accusation that Shri Karnard has made in the article (and it is entirely possible):

Cobham Aviation Services of UK was contracted to supply the quartz radome for the LCA radar. It is four months overdue, but the penalty clause has not been invoked. Why? Because an authoritative source says, the IAF has let it be informally known to the supplier that it doesn’t want an accelerated progress of the Mk-I lest it be ordered by the Govt to buy larger numbers of this aircraft, and so delays would be countenanced.

Further, considering the IAF’s attitude Cobham has also turned down ADA/DRDO’s request for 3-4 internal fueling probes to enable this aircraft to get an FOC (final operational clearance) for the Mk-I. No probes, delayed FOC.


This is a charge so serious that if true, I wish the involved folks tried under treasonous charges. Shri Karnard, cites authoritative sources. Surely, the GOI can double check on this without Shri Karnard having to disclose this authoritative source to the public.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Austin » 22 Jun 2015 11:24

IF IAF wants to delay stuff it can delay things legally in many ways citing bureaucratic procedures ......IAF role in delaying Tejas is not beyond suspicion

BK write up on many issue has not be very accurate

Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Avinash R » 22 Jun 2015 12:28

deejay wrote:
Cobham Aviation Services of UK was contracted to supply the quartz radome for the LCA radar. It is four months overdue, but the penalty clause has not been invoked. Why? Because an authoritative source says, the IAF has let it be informally known to the supplier that it doesn’t want an accelerated progress of the Mk-I lest it be ordered by the Govt to buy larger numbers of this aircraft, and so delays would be countenanced.

Further, considering the IAF’s attitude Cobham has also turned down ADA/DRDO’s request for 3-4 internal fueling probes to enable this aircraft to get an FOC (final operational clearance) for the Mk-I. No probes, delayed FOC.


This is a charge so serious that if true, I wish the involved folks tried under treasonous charges. Shri Karnard, cites authoritative sources. Surely, the GOI can double check on this without Shri Karnard having to disclose this authoritative source to the public.


This is nothing, more serious incidents of treason have occurred without being prosecuted. Bharat Karnad's claims of Indian and Russian made aircraft (or weaponry) being ignored or sabotaged has merit in it.

Indian army's Arjun MBT has been repeatedly sabotaged by the army officials themselves

Multiple suspicious accidents in the Indian Navy on Russian made vessels(INS Sindhurakshak, INS Sindhughosh, INS Konkan, INS Sindhuratna) have occurred.

The arm dealers managed to corrupt the IAF chief himself, CBI names former Air chief Shashi P Tyagi in Agusta kickbacks scandal and tried the same trick on IA chief who exposed it and pointed that the source of all this corruption emanated from a person inside the PMO

The political leadership under the UPA was compromised by the mafia and worked overtime to sabotage India's security. When treason occurs at the PMO level and PM has a do-nothing attitude, treason instead of being punished is rewarded.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 22 Jun 2015 17:19

Sanjay wrote:tsarkar, in what way was R77 disappointing ?
Refer Page 47 http://cdasecbad.ap.nic.in/sankalan/COM ... 0India.pdf

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/n ... rt/490055/

Also, Bars radar being the only fighter radar being manufactured in India, and its technology actually being transferred, it was easier to integrate with it than Elta 2032.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 22 Jun 2015 17:22

Bharat Karnad is a jingo who believes INS Arihant has rotary vertical missile launchers. His post is complete nonsense.

Also, IN has discarded its HPT-32 Deepak long back. Its no longer listed http://www.indiannavy.nic.in/naval-fleet/aircraft nor does any squadron fly it http://indiannavy.nic.in/naval-fleet/in ... -squadrons

http://indiannavy.nic.in/naval-aviation/inas-550

HPT-32 aircraft were inducted in Jan 86. In Oct 87, the squadron completed basic flying training on the HPT-32 for the first batch of 06 naval pilots. However, the practice was discontinued and the squadron ceased further basic flying training on the HPTs.

Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Sanjay » 22 Jun 2015 17:49

tsarkar wrote:
Sanjay wrote:tsarkar, in what way was R77 disappointing ?
Refer Page 47 http://cdasecbad.ap.nic.in/sankalan/COM ... 0India.pdf

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/n ... rt/490055/

Also, Bars radar being the only fighter radar being manufactured in India, and its technology actually being transferred, it was easier to integrate with it than Elta 2032.


I remember this and thanks. Your last sentence I take it means that R77 should have easily integrated with the Bars radar.

Could the issue have been poor IAF storage of the missiles (playing devils advocate here) ?

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby srin » 22 Jun 2015 18:07

tsarkar wrote:
Sanjay wrote:tsarkar, in what way was R77 disappointing ?
Refer Page 47 http://cdasecbad.ap.nic.in/sankalan/COMMON/Report%2018%20of%20The%20Comptroller%20and%20Auditor%20General%20of%20India.pdf

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/n ... rt/490055/

Also, Bars radar being the only fighter radar being manufactured in India, and its technology actually being transferred, it was easier to integrate with it than Elta 2032.


tsarkar-ji, thank you very much for the CAG report link - I saw something else interesting (related to Vikky) - check the Naval thread

Anyway, does the missile mentioned there refer to R-77 ? Because it talks about the missile launchers too. I didn't know if AAMs have launchers. Or does it refer to special type of pylons ?

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7050
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby JE Menon » 22 Jun 2015 19:23

Boys, in the newly released Annual Report by MOD there is a picture of an aircraft about to land on a carrier. There is an aircraft parked on the carrier that looks remarkably like the Naval LCA... Is my guess correct or my eyes deceiving me?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 22 Jun 2015 19:58

How else to explain the greater proficiency of naval pilots flying and readying to fight over a more difficult medium — the sea,

Unfortunately Karnad voluntarily chooses to talk like an idiot - it was no better when he fudged and fumbled at a live talk in Bangalore a couple of years ago.

So the sea is more difficult than flying low over mountainous terrain or low over desert? Karnad says things that make me lose what little respect I have for him with a series of farts of this type. I think he just like to bitch in that silly British accent of his.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 22 Jun 2015 20:55

Is there a link to MOD's annual report? thx.

idrw says sri-lanka going to buy J17/ (FWIW/OT). did we lose LCA order in the neighborhood?

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3222
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 22 Jun 2015 22:55

@Sanjay - Sorry, I meant Astra. Bars in the only radar completely manufactured in India - at HAL Hyderabad, if I remember correctly. Its software also being made available to India meant that integrating Astra to Su-30 was simpler than integrating Astra to Tejas. I'm sure the Israelis would've demanded their pound of flesh.

http://hal-india.com/Avionics%20Divisio ... bad/M__122 Check RLSU radar and Weapons Control System

With regards to storage, IAF stored R-23 for MiG-23, R-60, R-27 & R-73E for MiG-29, Super 530D, Magic more or less the same way as R-77. R-73E never had any performance issues. Issues were due to manufacturing & QC, but IAF made emergency purchases of R-27.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... r-missile/
The Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) awarded a $250m contract for R-27 missiles in March 2012. The first batch of missiles was delivered to the Indian Air Force (IAF) in August 2013.


http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine ... 28022.html

@srin - yes, AAMs have special adaptors/launchers to pylons, to transfer data for LOBL from radar or HMCS. For IR homing missiles, the adaptors/launchers have cooling to cool IR seekers before launch.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 22 Jun 2015 22:59

SaiK wrote:Is there a link to MOD's annual report? thx.

idrw says sri-lanka going to buy J17/ (FWIW/OT). did we lose LCA order in the neighborhood?



Even IAF hasn't ordered more LCAs and you worry about losing orders in neighborhood!!!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19683
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 22 Jun 2015 23:13

The CAG report is for the first few batches of R77s. We don't know how the rest were, the Russians claimed the problems were resolved.. but... And what types the R-27s were, SARH or IR or both.
http://www.artem.ua/en/produktsiya/avia ... es-r-27er1

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: LCA Tejas: News and Discussions

Postby Vipul » 23 Jun 2015 05:01

Gurus, what are the different milestones to be achieved before Tejas gets IOC 2 and what will remain to be achieved after IOC 2 to go to FOC ?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests